This is the worst article ever!

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/11/scre ... istic.html

Age of Autism is a snark blog run by a bunch of so-called "warrior parents" with an overblown sense of self-importance and self-righteousness. They are anti-vaxxer conspiracy mongers.

Isn't it ironic that they say only medical experts can diagnose autism, but they reject medical experts who tell them there is absolutely no credible evidence that vaccines cause autism.

I would completely disregard the article. This is what it says in their about section "We are published to give voice to those who believe autism is an environmentally induced illness, that it is treatable, and that children can recover." and "We believe that autism is the defining disorder of our age, man-made and therefore preventable, and that it points to the truth about other problems that beset us, from ADD to asthma to Alzheimer's." So I would ignore it.

Thanks for pointing that out. There goes all their credibility.

The people who run and write for that website seem to be insane.

So yeah, I wouldn't just say worst article, I'd say one of the worst websites on the web.

Certain drugs can mimic certain diseases and disorders (Celiac Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia and Parkinson's AKA "drug-induced Parkinsonism," among others). Certain other drugs can induce certain diseases (famously, the polio vaccination). Several of these mimicked and induced diseases and disorders are known to medical researchers. How many are we unaware about? Are we so sure that other drugs can't mimic or induce certain autism-spectrum disorders (or at least their observable characteristics)? If too many ASD diagnosticians are currently flummoxed by the diagnostic-criteria changes from DSM-IV to DSM-5, should we be surprised that they mightn't recognize mimicked or drug-induced ASD characteristics and diagnose incorrectly?

I believe that most people who were diagnosed with ASDs in past years had naturally occuring disorders. I amn't so certain about those (especially those without lifelong characteristics) who are diagnosed today. Drug interactions, mimicking and induced diseases are commonplace these days. Lawyers are making billions of dollars from lawsuits against the unintended consequences of many drugs. Is it responsible to believe that ASDs are untouched by similar mistakes? Is the autism spectrum the only category of medicine that is miraculously spared from such errors and unintended consequences?

To call anyone who simply doubts the inherent safety and purity of vaccinations a "monger" of any kind is too harsh considering how chockablock
the remaining field of pharmaceutical products is with drugs that have infamously altered, injured or killed their patients. I believe that those individuals who believe that vaccinations have always caused adverse autistic reactions are just as myopic as those who claim that vaccinations have never caused adverse autistic reactions.

But, I would never presume to call them mongers.

Last edited by AspieUtah on 10 Nov 2014, 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The whole thing is people do not become autistic, which is what thinking it comes from vaccines would suggest....kids don't just develop autism out of the blue, it is not how it works. Not to say there are not disorders that could have simularities that could be caused by vaccines or drugs(not sure how much research has been done) but then those would not be the same thing as 'autism' since autism is a varying neurology people are born with.

Exactly! But, what kind of diagnostician would recognize the differences without neurological evidence to confirm an ASD diagnosis? Without such evidence, it is a matter of "ASD is as ASD does." And, what ASD does might be mimicked or induced by one or more drug interactions. I, for one, wouldn't close the door on that idea quite yet.

It's funny, I read a similar article today, and when I saw this thread title, I thought that would be the article you were talking about.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/10/jerry_s ... _research/

Here's the thing. I think a lot of people are fighting a battle that doesn't need to be fought. The mere fact that people are just casually thinking they might have it like it's no big deal (not just Jerry) indicates to me that people really don't understand what ASD is. We don't need a positive role model to show how we can function and be successful in the real world, when most people don't even think we have those problems in the place. It's not Jerry's fault. He did say "a broad sense", but people aren't focusing on that. All they heard was, "I'm on the spectrum." It's getting to the point where if people think you're weird, or unintentionally rude, or unorganized, ASD now holds no weight on that. You might as well be saying, "Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant. I have brown hair, so it's harder for me." It means about the same thing now.

There was a kid in my 11th grade history class who would miss schools for days at a time because of problems with his OCD, and the people who think they have OCD because they like the volume on the TV to be at a certain number were surprised, because they had no idea that it was actually a serious thing. People don't realize that these things vary in severity, and that a disorder generally isn't diagnosed unless it's something that is actually having a real impact on your life (whether you consider that to be dysfunctional or differently functional). Again, it's not Jerry's fault. It's society's poor understanding that is the problem. I'm not arguing that people should know that autistics like Jerry exist. They should. I'm arguing that they already know that, and I think the perception of this will be a confirmation that ASD is no big deal (even if it actually is for Jerry, they don't see that).

But yeah, the article you posted is still stupid. It makes the mistakes of assuming differently functional is automatically the same as dysfunctional, that you can't work to overcome those difficulties and be successful, and that Jerry Seinfeld never had those difficulties in the first place.

It's reasonable to ask questions about vaccines. It's not reasonable to believe there's an elaborate conspiracy on the part of the CDC, FDA, government medical agencies in other countries, major medical organizations, and most major medical universities to cover up vaccines causing autism.

Sadly a country like France that never recognized DSM I,II,III,IV and V and who has it's own manual and still runs on archaic Freudian ideologies really believes autism is either a choice or comes from the environment people live in, and it's mostly due of a rejection from the mother during pregnancy, at birth or later on. And so for France autism muse be cured and can be treated, even by using radical, painful and methods that go against human rights, and of course these methods and Freudian ideologies are state approved, so good luck for any psychiatrist who tries to have different views or approaches like they do in the rest of the world.

From the article:

That reminds me... do you remember that hilarious episode where Jerry walked around his apartment on his tiptoes while flapping, wiped his poop on the wall, got lost for three days in Manhattan, was tortured by bullies and then had a seizure? Me neither.

It's just plain ridiculous for the author to suggest that "actual autism" has to be like that for everyone.

You are correct; believing that "there's an elaborate conspiracy on the part of the CDC, FDA, government medical agencies in other countries, major medical organizations, and most major medical universities to cover up vaccines causing autism" is just that: a belief. Last time I checked, such beliefs are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. I would no sooner ridicule a believer of your theory of "an elaborate conspiracy" than I would someone who knows that the definition of the word conspiracy is simply "a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal" and that history is abundant with such conspiracies (from Bonnie and Clyde to every U.S. government worker who knowingly and willfully assisted in the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment of 1932 to 1972). If I was taught in school that U.S. President Lincoln was assassinated by the coordinated actions of at least eight individuals, does that make me a "conspiracy theorist" or just someone who knows historical facts?

My stance on this whole thing is that it's really not as big of a deal as it has been made into. Personally, I really couldn't care less what Jerry Seinfeld said, but that's just me. So some famous person said something that may or may not be true...big whoopdeedoo.

I think the author's description of "real autism" is pretty ridiculous. I even have severely autistic child who doesn't meet her description! However, recent history suggests that people are stupidly influenced by famous people (e.g. Jenny McCarthy!! !) so I understand why some people are getting their knickers in a twist over it. I don't think it benefits anybody who actually has autism to have nobody take autism seriously. It is a serious "thing" (for lack of a better term). Even if you don't find yourself to be "disabled", people have to take it seriously in order to be willing to make changes to society to work better for you.

I watched Modern Family the other day (it's a sitcom for those who aren't familiar) and at one point at a college tour, this geeky teenage boy says to Alex (geeky female character), "I have Asperger's"...then "I actually don't. I just said that so you'd think I was interesting". (Episode was called "Don't Push"). I think that comment says something about society on multiple levels, in terms of people not taking it seriously..and it kinda sorta reminded me of this in a way......... take from that what you will.

While I happen to not believe vaccines cause autism, I think it's completely detrimental to your cause to say "kids don't just develop autism out of the blue, it is not how it works" because actually...some apparently do. I have two children diagnosed with autism, and one of them regressed (the other showed some signs from birth). I don't have a theory as to how or why that occurred, but I'm 100% certain it did occur.

Oooo dang it, and I was inclined to blame those shiny metallic cupcake sprinkles (they're pure mercury, you know). Or that my mother is refrigerator with reproductive capabilities. Still, the parochial authors might consider that I earned my PhD despite those cupcake sprinkles. What maroons.

I propose a toast! Cupcakes for the all of the Wrong Planet!

< And no cupcakes for you, articles authors or Jenny McCarthy >

The author of the article does not seem to realize that autism is a spectrum disorder, not all of those who have it will present in the same way.

I don't believe autism is caused by the environment/vaccines. I think autistic people have been around longer than vaccines. And now measles is making a comeback because people aren't vaccinating. I hope the same doesn't happen with polio.